Slashdot Mirror
Google to Distribute Online Video Ads
sufijazz writes to mention an AP story about Google's plan to start distributing online video ads. From the article: "The video expansion, announced late Monday, will affect thousands of Web sites that rely on Google to post ads related to the surrounding material on a page. For instance, a news story about housing might prompt Google to display an ad for real estate agents. Google isn't allowing the video ads to appear on its own Web site -- a heavily trafficked destination that produced 58 percent of its $2.25 billion in revenue during the first three months of this year."
"You killed my yogurt!" --Fred Fredburger
Nearly every site will blast annoying sounds out the instant I visit the page? We'll have to surf porn with the sound turned down?
Task Mangler
FTA: "The appeal of Google's video ads might be dampened by controls that will prevent the messages from automatically streaming across a Web page. Google instead will display graphics promoting video ads that won't be played unless a viewer clicks on a play button."
The appeal to me is precisely that I don't have to watch the ads if I don't want to. Thank goodness.
Of course, advertisers are probably less enthused -- but I'm sure major brands understand that potential customers do get pissed off by intrusive advertising.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I don't think they'll mind to much - from tfa:
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
If the Eolas patent "Click To Activate" crap ever makes it to Firefox, I'll have to click on the ad to have it rammed down my throat? Sure, of course I will. If I didn't, it'd be like stealing the Internet.
Not only is this a waste of bandwidth, but Google became so popular because of their clear, textual interface. And that included their ads which were usually easily visible and not obnoxious to look at. I will actually click on relevant text links, but I don't click on banner ads or video ads, ever.
Hopefully this won't turn out as bad as it sounds.
Presently here, but not there.
>> The appeal of Google's video ads might be dampened by controls that will prevent the messages from automatically streaming across a Web page. Google instead will display graphics promoting video ads that won't be played unless a viewer clicks on a play button.
Its close, but still - what if I dont want any video ad appearing on my website through adsense? Do people have choice of "only text"/"text and video"/"video only"?
There is really not much to bitch about here. It is a still ad with the ability to become a video ad.
Slashdot already has those fancy Microsoft video ads, and thiers are set to autoplay! Although, thank FSM, they are muted from the start and the user gets to activate the sound.
Slashdot has ads?
;-)
/. crowd can accept video ads (from MS no less), then the rest of the internet will lap up video ads that aren't forced on you.
*fires up IE*
Damnit you're right!
and yes, your point was completely valid, if the
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I'm puzzled, there has been some speculation of Google working on Flash ads support, but I didn't expect videos to make it before Flash.
Of course, the video player of Google (the online one) is working inside Flash, and uses Flash video, but why not allow *any* Flash content as an ad?
For once, what would be a 1MB video could easily fit into less than 100k vector and procedural (scripting enhanced) animation using the full toolset of Flash.
---
Of course, last but not least, I wonder where is the promise of Google to always deliver light non-intrusive ads. Text-only ads were so great, but soon polluted by big image banner ads (not on the Google's site yet, but on google ad enhanced sites), and now... videos.
Google is walking on a thin line right now.
Sorry, I completely forget about Ad-Block and similar features within user setups that are available. I am at work, I have to get the slow served, full featured internet. God forbid I try and save my office some bandwidth by editing my System32 "hosts" file.
The appeal of Google's video ads might be dampened by controls that will prevent the messages from automatically streaming across a Web page. Google instead will display graphics promoting video ads that won't be played unless a viewer clicks on a play button.
The activation feature could discourage many advertisers from signing up for the new video service, said Jupiter Research analyst David Card. "This isn't going to be a game changer for Google, but it gives them a much richer palette."
</FTA>
It really isn't that bad, although I don't know how many people are going to click the ads. I'm sure some will to start, just for the novalty, but over time, I doubt this will be a big revenue generator for Google (wasn't that an original opinion considering the quote from Mr. Card!).
I wonder if the video will work on *nix anyway, and if it doesn't, whose going to bother installing the codec and plugin to make it work?
Google could get themselves into trouble though, if they let those pictures be animated, but I'm sure they know not to do that, otherwise they would just have the video start automatically.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seus
Amazing... as I write there are 17 top-level posts of which 11 are saying something to the effect that "OMFG!!! Waste of bandwidth! All these sites are gonna be really slow!!! I'm editing my hosts file..." etc.
This means that fully 64.7% of Slashdot readers are so eager to rant on (not having read TFA) that they don't even mind making themselves look like utter fools, proudly displaying their complete ignorance of the matter under discussion, their inability to understand the facts before formulating an opinion, and their general desperate need for upwards moderation, which is the only kind of "social" approbation they can ever hope for.
As many have pointed out, including in this thread: you have to choose to see the video. Now can you all calm down and learn to think? There's an interesting discussion to be had about this, and the morons' chorus is drowning it out.
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
I often "Shoot the duck" or "Stomp on the spider" or "Kill the ninja" or whatever while I'm waiting for a page to load (as pages that tend to have these adds tend to load slow). I use Firefox so when I "win" the popup doesn't appear. I just get to have a little bit of guilty pleasure. This is an interesting more. It seems to be on the face or it a poor one from what I can see, similar to what people have already states, advertisers aren't going to be happy. Then again, Google ads are very popular because they are non-intrusive. If you have non-intrusive video adds you will still be reaching the large audience Google Ads already reaches. And don't forget, if they don't click on it, its still a picture add (presumably). I guess Google are banking on advertisers realising this. See annoying add. Block it/Ignore it. See picture of something interesting. Click to play, go to website. Which would get more? Time will tell I guess.
A reminder to people who use the AdSense service (and not those of you who like to spout without knowing what you are talking about) - you can set your prefs so that only text ads will be displayed.
Brielle